Jump to content

How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity


iNow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Upon reviewing the thread, I also conclude that I look like a big fat jerk, and in particular I mis-remembered berating of religious people in this thread. I know you have berated religious people in other threads, but that is no excuse to drag that here.

 

<...>

 

I responded both off topic and more aggressively than warranted.

 

<...>

 

Anyhow, I'll agree with iNow that this is off-topic, and apologize for causing a mess.

I request... again... that the staff please move all of these off-topic posts from #155 forward (except for my brief exchange with TAR in posts 175, & 177-180) to their own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I request... again... that the staff please move all of these off-topic posts from #155 forward (except for my brief exchange with TAR in posts 175, & 177-180) to their own thread.

 

Please. You have already reported three posts and made this request seven times in this thread. You do not need to continue repeating it.

 

We read all reported posts and discuss what action should be taken. In this particular case, we took in-thread action to stop personal attacks and get back on a reasonable course.

 

Now, this may not be your actual intention -- I do not pretend to be psychic -- but your insistent requests give the impression that you do not wish to hear alternate viewpoints on this subject, and that you want us to facilitate that. We won't.

 

If you believe that any posts cross the line as this thread continues, you can always report them. We do consider every reported post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, this may not be your actual intention -- I do not pretend to be psychic -- but your insistent requests give the impression that you do not wish to hear alternate viewpoints on this subject, and that you want us to facilitate that. We won't.

As has already been conceded above by the individual initiating the attack, the viewpoints expressed had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. The subject of the attacks was not related to the subject, nor content, of the thread.

 

I don't understand why there is this continued delay in making the split. Mr.Skeptic, as shown in my quote of his post, agreed that this was all off-topic. What's the problem?

 

Why is there such a delay in splitting the off-topic posts out of this thread? I've worked VERY hard over the last 8 months to keep this thread tight and on-topic. I am merely asking for a little bit of help from you guys to support me in that effort.

 

I am NOT trying to censor alternative viewpoints, and it's rather distressing and exasperating that you would even suggest I am attempting such a thing given the context here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me interject here for a moment.

 

iNow, I see your point about the posts being off-topic, but I have to say, I disagree with your request to split them off. People aren't machines, and discussions are never run on a single track. We usually veer off to the sides and go off on tangents; in debate forums, when tangents are too far off the original subject, we split it off to continue a side-discussion. But when discussions veer off to make a point that is valid to the general picture of the original debate (as was done here), then there's no need to split the posts.

 

The tangent might be slightly off topic, but it's valid.

 

The only way to truly, and honestly, and actually gain from such "tangents" is to veer back onto the original discussion, taking the side-argument into mind. We won't be able to do that if the debating sides are stuck in a resolution that the debate must be "pure" and consist STRICTLY of what the original subject was discussing regardless of any accompanying "bigger picture" discontents.

 

"Off topic" doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. It sometimes *contributes* to a thread. When a discussion is too much off topic, and results in a completely different argument, we split it. When a discussion is off-topic to make a point, we veer back to topic, and sometimes the discussion is better after the tangent.

 

Please -- PLEASE -- stop arguing about whether or not we should split the threads, and get back on topic. We're a discussion forum, guys, not a collaborative essay.

 

~moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when tangents are too far off the original subject, we split it off to continue a side-discussion.

Except in this case, apparently.

 

 

But when discussions veer off to make a point that is valid to the general picture of the original debate (as was done here), then there's no need to split the posts.

No, again... As conceded above by Mr.Skeptic, that is NOT what happened here.

 

 

 

The tangent might be slightly off topic, but it's valid.

 

<...>

 

"Off topic" doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. It sometimes *contributes* to a thread.

 

It was little more than a personal attack based on a complete misreading/miscomprehension of the thread. I couldn't disagree more with what you've decided, wonder how you could possibly suggest that what just happened "contributed" to the thread and helped the topic, and I am frustrated by the lack of support here from you guys after an obvious attack on me by Mr.Skeptic, but whatever. I'm the bad guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was little more than a personal attack based on a complete misreading/miscomprehension of the thread. I couldn't disagree more with what you've decided, wonder how you could possibly suggest that what just happened "contributed" to the thread and helped the topic, and I am frustrated by the lack of support here from you guys after an obvious attack on me by Mr.Skeptic, but whatever. I'm the bad guy.

 

Oh hush. You're both the bad guys here. I am not pleased with the behavior on both sides of the discussion, but your particular manner of responding to a problem with a bigger problem is not something I am fond of.

 

Now, I have removed posts 155-160, the posts that were originally the "turds." The ones left behind are non-turd. If Mr Skeptic believes their points are better made in a separate thread, he can open a thread to make them. (In fact, I suggest he do that.) At this point splitting the existing posts will just split the anger off into its own thread, and that's not fair for the topic -- I think Skeptic and Tar have some good points that are worth discussion.

 

Also, a word of future advice: if you don't think a post is on topic, don't respond to it and drag things further off topic.

 

If you insist on continuing to drag your own thread off topic by arguing with me about who's the bad guy, we will be forced to close it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you insist on continuing to drag your own thread off topic by arguing with me about who's the bad guy, we will be forced to close it.

 

Frankly, it doesn't much matter any more. You have shown how little respect you have for the topic under discussion... a topic which I've been nourishing and carefully protecting from emotion and misrepresentation these past 8 months... and worse, how little respect you seem to have for me.

 

It's not even about Mr.Skeptic miscomprehending the thread. He didn't even bother reading it before launching into an attack about how I was treating religious people. It was only after I stood my ground and forced him to go back and review the thread that he conceded he was way out of line and his comments had absolutely zero to do with the discussion taking place in this thread... And the claims from you and Moo that his comments were on-topic are wholly inaccurate.

 

I put a lot of effort into this thread, and I'm just pissed off that none of you seem to even understand what it's about, or care how much consideration I've put into avoiding the "god" and "religion" topic while still addressing the science of belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will note that we removed the attacks by Mr Skeptic. As for attacking religious people, well, there is far more to his argument that just that.

 

Lessons learned from this thread:

 

  • Responding to what you think is trolling or flaming with more trolling or flaming only makes things worse.
  • Post reports are always read promptly and discussed by the staff. In-thread demands are unnecessary and just make things worse.
  • Arguing with staff derails things even more. The thread was basically fine after Tar's posts.
  • Nobody owns a discussion.

 

That will be all for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.